tv [untitled] September 23, 2014 12:30am-1:01am PDT
the design review committee was in support of the project. they did request some more information in particular around replacement trees, minimizing some of the details of the platforms. they had some questions about the canopy structures and the wind screens. we will be preparing a memo of the architectural review committees and recommendations. if you are interested we can forward you a copy. the commission went on to approval for several certificates. they were all approved as recommended by staff. finally preservation staff gave an overview of all planning code related to preservation. it was more of an informational presentation to set the stage for the review of supervisor cohen's
legislation regarding pdr conversion to office in landmark properties. ultimately, during the discussion of the proposed legislation, the hpc continued the item until it's october 2nd hearing. in the interim they are interested in providing a letter to this commission so you know some of the thoughts going on in their heads about how they believe the legislation could be more effective. some of the questions they still have and staff is working on a response right now. they want to be as useful and possible to the zoning administrator as part of staff to this commission as the final deciders on whether or not this pdr should be converted to office. they do have some questions about process. they do want to have a better idea of what's expected to them and they discuss how they could provide some criteria so they are able to
discuss the merits of proposals for buildings and how these buildings could be rehabilitated provided the pdr is converted to office. like we said we'll be providing a letter on october the 2nd and they will have discussion for more robust discussions so they can be more productive in that process. finally, to let you know, at the beginning of the summer we presented and overview of the draft element as part of the general plan. the hpc spent time reviewing the draft element and we had the open house at the old mint last week. there was a great turnout, about 50 participants, a lot of folks providing great recommendations on how to make that part of the general plan and effective document. we had various organizations, neighborhood organizations,
spur, the national trust and press acid i presidio trust and we are still continuing to receive comments. we'll bring that to you for adoption. we believe in early 2015. that concludes my comments to you and i'm happy to entertain any questions. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. let's keep in touch through the commission secretary and the director about the subcommittee. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: is it possible do you ever prepare a summary of which buildings were added to the historic district that you mentioned. it would be interesting to know which ones they are? >> i'm not sure? which historic district? >> you said jackson square,alamo square. >> they are for existing designated properties. we weren't adding properties.
>> we would like to see what they are because there is so much on the margin of all of that. it would be great for us to see. >> happy to provide that information. city clerk: commissioners if there is nothing further we can address the public comment period. public comment:at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. when the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the board must be exercised during the public comment portion of the calendar. each member of the public may address the board for up to 3 minutes. if it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the president may continue public comment to another time during the meeting. public comment:at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the board will be
afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. when the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the board must be exercised during the public comment portion of the calendar. each member of the public may address the board for up to 3 minutes. if it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the president may continue public comment to another time during the meeting. 1241234 >> i did receive two speaker cards. patricia, neighborhood merchant. i have a case coming up and a few years ago dr. faye and his wife had a historical building and they needed to put a canopy over the front because they were rained on as they walked in and they were denied because it was a registered historical building. now we have another applicant that wants to tear down the majority of the building says it was moved and it doesn't follow the numbers and it's not a historical building. and i don't understand why we are having this conflict on this building. i am just interested in more than anything because i remember the case. but how can an identified landmark all of a sudden not be on the list. no. 2, how can, why would they deny something so minor and now they are trying to demolish or basically rebuild the building. i'm not saying pro or conon
this but there are some things about this case i would like to straighten out and would like to work with tim frye if possible on this case because of his wealth of knowledge. that's what i'm asking and would love to hear back from the department. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. todd welg of the group. i'm here to share with you the results of the second research poll that tall go as conducted this summer. a is survey of voters in the city about some important issues of development and future of this city. i want to note in particular an as astounding matter that 91 percent of those really believe it's important to protect small businesses and
artist from displacement by development and 78 percent want the flower mart specifically. the number is an as astounding figure and obviously it's an issue of the highest possible priority for the city. we asked two questions about the proposition manual limit and the rational behind it which is the balanced growth with the city's capacity and housing and entrance itd to support it. it's clear a good solid majority 62 percent supported and majority 53 percent for proposition m. the topic i really wanted to bring to your attention is the top. the approval rating of the planning department, on the issues of the impact on development and current boom
and planning for the future and having the best for economic growth. the rating is low. it's a 36 percent is not a good approval rating. 46 percent disapproval rating is not good either. now, i know that the public, the voters poll are not aware of the hundreds of hours of testimony that you have heard about these problems. i know they are not aware of the work that the department is doing on many of those issues trying to address them and respond to them. i appreciate that and i also know it takes so very long for the department to come up with the complicated solutions that it takes. the central soma plan is 1 year 1/2 now in process and almost a year yet to go before actual results will be adopted finally by the city and implemented. but i think it's clear that the department does need to communicate that it hears these issues and express
how it is going to tackle them or has tackled them. it's something you need to work on. instead the public just see's a shiny new arena or a high rise. that's not what they are looking for. they are looking for solutions that they care about and impact their lives and the lives of their neighbors and the people they care about. i this i that needs to get out there. the department's, the staff has been very accessible working with everybody. that's not the problem. it's a communication matter. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, next speaker? >> the proceeding represents one conversation amongst many and the succeeding represents one opinion amongst many on specific points of interest. the conversation begins with an opportunity to discuss that's been performed in northern
european stez cities and now progressed to many of them and it's focused and relevant and provides an opportunity for feedback as well as consideration for what we could accomplish. as the presenter states a cultural shift to address larger policy and to accomplish the reduction of pedestrian industries. to make no mistake, many forms of policy are derived from a catabolic standpoint no matter how they appear with time pressure and fear based advocates and specific results orientation. we shall remain no stranger to catabolic and reason and commentary, what schneider and others pointed out is that we could not control what comes across our desk,
however we can control our individual and presumably collective response. when faced with catabolism, how does an organization respond. does a room fill with feelings of victimization and finger pointing. we are entirely to justify to point out one of many items to sublet out, law less carcass law less pedestrians, aggressive police officers, times of day, weather, lack of police training, slow pedestrians, fast pedestrians, foreign pedestrians, bikes without license plates, improper fund, lack of funding, too large for government dollars, road rage. we are correct and perhaps
every municipality has led to casualties. the answer to the first question an appears to be nicole schneider that the most important points of this department's influence is the engineering and design of our streets. the answer to the second question remains. >> thank you. q. #9 is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards did you have a comment? >> i have a question for the woman who spoke -- >> i'm sorry, commissioner richards i think we have restrictions on it. >> sorry. i'm knew -- new to this. >> city clerk: commissioners if there is nothing further we can move on to your regular calendar. both consent items
were taken off. we'll take item 5. item 5: 2012.0059c o. masry; 4155 575-91166 431 balboa street - along the south side of balboa street, between 5th and 6th avenues, lot 047 in assessor's block 1639 - request for conditional use authorization under planning code sections 711.83 and 303 to allow a macro wireless telecommunications services wtss facility operated by at&t mobility. the proposed macro wts facility would feature nine 99 panel antennas screened by a combination of faux elements vent pipes, rooftop mechanical screens, and a faux decorative parapet extensionn, on the roof of an existing three-story mixed-use building. related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in a ground floor room. the facility is proposed on a location preference 5 site mixed-use building in a high-density districtt within a nc-2 neighborhood commercial, small-scalee zoning district, and 40-x height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco administrative code. preliminary recommendation: approve with sf 512341234 >> good afternoon, chair wu, members of the planning commission and department staff. the item before you is a request by at & t mobility at 431 balboa street. it consist of nine panel antennas at the top of the building. the building was a commercial space and redeveloped in the 90s to add two dwellings above. the project site is zoned neighborhood commercial small scale and given the land use is considered a preferred location by the wireless guidelines. this would be composed of three
primarily elements on the rooftop. first three panel antennas would be placed in the front end of the building or screened by replacement ter pit and three additional antennas located in vent pipes and three antennas near the rear of the building and screened intended to mimic wood lattice screening. additional electronic equipment in the ground floor area underneath the stairs. the community was presented with the information and on ppositions on project over concern of radio wave emissions. the facility would comply with the fcc standards. thank you. that concludes my presentation.
antennas on balboa street. at & t has worked with staff and the community to develop an appropriate and least intrusive means in the vicinity of the proposed facility. in this context it is important to appreciate that the commission is tasked with reviewing the application based on applicable laws and regulations including city code, applicable state and federal law. it is in incumbent upon a wireless provider to demonstrate that it has first a significant gap in service coverage and it propose to close the gap. it's a two prong test. in our application, at & t has shown that it has a significant gap in service coverage in the vicinity of balboa street and statement that demonstrates the existence of it's coverage gap. this statement explains that at & t has a gap and 4 g lte serves
in the area and the proposed facility will close the gap. the city requires a radio electric frequency engineer. at & t has conducted the analysis. in this year, edison conducted the report that at & t has in fact a significant gap in the service coverage in the vicinity of 431 balboa street and at & t's proposal will close the gap. bill hamate with edison is here to answer questions that you may have as it relates to this report. at & t's application also demonstrates that it aims to close the gap by this means. what qualifies as least intrusive means is based on the city's code. the question that is raised
is whether the proposed facility is consistent with the values expressed in the government's code. the application includes an analysis of evaluation of available locations from which at & t can propagate a signal to the gap. at & t evaluated 67 alternate sites in the area. one was a school, four preference four locations, 8 preference 5 locations and 87 preference four locations. there were no preference to location sites and preference 3 locations available from the range. on the bases of an analysis alt if i have at & t selected 431 balboa. there is no other location where at & t can close the gap by the
least intrusive means. some members of raised concern about the wireless communication facilities about how effects of radio and frequency emissions is contributed -- continue addicted by the evidence ats is not substantial evidence to support the denial. federal law -- the impact of making decisions to the extent such facilities comply with the fcc regulations concerning such anne -- emission. here it will operate well below applicable federal fcc limits. as mentioned prior rf engineering analysis for the proposed facility was proposed by edison, the report confirmation the proposed
facility will perform well within and below the applicable public occupational and exposure limits. this report was also reviewed and signed off by the city's department of public health. this shows there is a gap in the area that causes significant coverage in wireless service and demonstrated in its application in the analysis the proposed facility is the least intrusive means to close this gap. at & t is trying to upgrade it's network to meet with the telecommunications demand in san francisco and is prudent in careful consideration of the aesthetic impacts this city intends to promote. at & t is complying with the city's land use regulation and general plan.
the proposed is the least intrusive to fill the widee coverage gap in the area. i ask you to please consider the information presented to you today as well as the recommendation from staff to approve with conditions and support our conditional use permit. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. opening for public comment. if i call your name, please lineup on the screen side of the room. john cobbo. >> if your name has been called, feel free to approach the podium. >> president wu, commissioners, good afternoon, my name is john mcbo. i'm here to strongly state my opposition for approval of this conditional use permit for
cell towers. i have read the recommended summary and have problems with it. i have 58 of my fellow neighbors who live in the area who signed the petition which i will present. i have some major disagreements with it. first, living in that area for the last 30 years, i disagree with the fact that it will disrupt or it will not disrupt the normal architecture of the residential area. i live about 50 feet away and every morning when i wake up, i am going to see these towers in my view. when i go to sleep at night, i'm also going to see these towers that be be
obstructing my sunlight. but that's my problem. however i have a bigger community concern that has to do with my fellow residents who live around where this proposed tower is going to be. that has to do with the radio frequency emissions. i'm not an engineer, i'm a physician, but i do understand science. i read the report and i asked myself, how would their methodology using a probe and meter can they accurately measure 11,000 watts of energy radio frequency emissions with what they were using? i called this department of public health, talked with a person at the environmental health management section to confirm that these measurements are calculated measurements . they are not direct measurements. so i asked, okay, if they
erect this tower, i know by policy they have to measure 10 days and two 2 years subsequently. what if the emissions are above the federal fcc guidelines? what are they going to do? well, they have to tear it down. somehow that doesn't seem right to me. i don't know if you are aware of how these reports are generated, but i find it a little bit disturbing that these are really measurements not on direct measurements, but basically best guesses if you are tasked my opinion. that's one big problem i have. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, your time has ended.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is -- mcbo. i'm married to him. i have a handout also. i also oppose the nine panel antenna. i google what it's going to look like on the roof and on the second page is a picture of my bedroom window. this shows where the antennas will be placed and it's less than 50 feet from my bedroom window. i wanted to say they i don't think they looked the entire neighborhood. kaiser hospital has a building a block away between 56 and gary and goinges from gary to andes street. and also this notice that we got was just two 2 weeks ago.
it was the first time that we heard about this. that's all. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, next speaker. >> the antenna is going to block my view as i look out the window and it's going to block my view. it's ugly. another thing, we know that cancer is environmental part of it is environmental and i don't want these antennas giving out radiation.
i really oppose this. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is sue jen hong. i live in the neighborhood community. i oppose this. i am an artist. i care about what i see everyday when i open my door or window. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. next speaker? >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is ana chassis. i live about 12 feet. i don't know if
you watch dr. oz but i do and he says to keep your phone at least 12 feet away. i have been a loyal customer from at & t. i work from home. i don't have any problem connecting. i get all 5 dots. i don't see a problem in this area. i also have a friend who lives on irving and 22 #7bd. my phone doesn't work. that is a good 15 minute drive away from my house. i don't think there is a problem with connection in my area. i also do not support having to physically absorb these radio frequency waves from my bedroom, from my work area. i don't think it's good for me physically and i don't think it's good for my neighbors either. i hope you take a look at the
50 signatures and consider that because i don't think this is good for our area. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, is there additional public comment? >> my name is daniel wu. i live next door to the proposed tower about 15 feet. we share the same wall. i'm very concerned about this situation and i learned about this late, but i did read the report online and still feel very concerned about it. i have two daughters 10 and 14. it doesn't tell me how people of different age is going to react to this situation. i have been a loyal customer
of at & t and used for several yearsen my house and we have same services. we never have any problem using this at home with at & t. i strongly object to this approval of conditional use of the tower and also object to be able to kind of limit it. normal life in this neighborhood. especially i'm a close neighbor of this up and coming proposed tower. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> commissioners, i just want to speak in opposition to the antenna as well. it's not my neighborhood, but i hope you all understand that if you read the small print t